





























Japanese Immigration 

ITS STATUS IN CALIFORNIA 







. • -V * V ■ • , V ,; f ■ , •. . ■ fft-.Xi 

■ v -''' V" ■ V 


PREPARED BY 

YAMATO ICHIHASHI, A. M. 

Formerly a Special Agent of the 
United States Immigration Commission 





PUBLISHED BY 

THE JAPANESE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

1913 

















JAPANESE IMMIGRATION 


ITS STATUS IN CALIFORNIA 


yt -3U- 

ifft- 


PREPARED BY 

YAMATO ICHIHASHI, A. M. 

Formerly a Special Agent of the 
United States Immigration Commission 


PUBLISHED BY 

THE JAPANESE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

1913 




a* 

m \* i9i4 



LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY 

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Stanford University, Cal., 
March 31, 1913. 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Mr. Yamato Ichihashi is preparing a pamphlet on the Japanese 
question on the Pacific Coast. I wish to say in his behalf that he 
is entirely competent to give a just and thorough treatment of this 
subject. He is a graduate of Stanford University, where he was 
for a time assistant in the Department of Economics. He spent 
two years at Harvard University, where he was appointed Henry 
Bromfield Rogers Memorial Fellow. He has a very thorough 
knowledge of America, and American conditions, as well as of 
the purposes, ambitions and resources of his own country, and his 
essay should be of the greatest value in bringing about a better 
understanding where there is every reason for friendship and 
none whatever for suspicion and enmity. 

Very truly yours, 




CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION: By President David Starr Jordan. page. 

Introductory : 

The Object of this Pamphlet . 1 

The Sources Used . 1-2 

PART I. 

History and Extent of Japanese Immigration: 

1. The Extent of Immigration . 3-5 

2. The Extent of Emigration . 5-6 

3. Japanese Population in the United States. 6-7 

PART II. 

Character of Japanese Immigrants: 

1. Their Occupations at Home . 8-10 

2. The Proportion of Females . 10-11 

3. Their Age Distribution . 11 

4. Their Financial Status . 11-12 

5. Their Literacy . 12-14 

PART III. 

Geographical Distribution of Japanese Immigrants : 

1. In the United States by “Census Divisions” . 15 

2. In California— 

By County. 16 

By City. 16-17 

PART IY. 

Economic Status of Japanese in California: 

1. Occupational Distribution . 18-19 

2. Japanese in Agriculture— 

The Position of Japanese Farm Laborers. 19-26 

Japanese “Competition” . 26-27 

The Extent of Japanese Fanning . 27-28 

Its True Economic Status . 28-29 




















Economic Status of Japanese in California— Continued : 

3. Japanese City Trades— page. 

Their Nature and Scope. 29-30 

The Wages Paid to Employees. 30 

Sanitary Conditions of the Shops. 30-31 

4. Japanese in Domestic Service . 31-33 

5. Railroad Employees . 33 

6 . The Relative Efficiency of Japanese . 33-34 

PART V. 

Social and Political Aspects of Japanese Immigration : 

1. The Japanese Capacity for Assimilation . 35-36 

2. The Actual Progress Made Toward Assimilation . 36-37 

3. Special Schools for Japanese Adults . 37 

4. Students. 37-38 

5. How Many Can Read and Write English. 38-40 

6 . American Publications Read . 40 

7. Their Political Status—Their Desire for Citizenship .... 40 

8 . Amalgamation, and Legal and Social Obstacles . 40-41 

9. Their Religious Life . 41 

10. Their Organziations— 

Japanese Association of America . 41 

Japanese Benevolent Society . 41 

11. Japanese and Crime . 41-42 

12. Japanese and Drinking . 42 

13. No Pauperism Among Japanese . 42 

14. Japanese Not a White Race . 42 

15. Recapitulation: 

The Extent of Japanese Immigration Insignificant . .. 42-43 

The “Scums” of Japan Never Immigrated to America. 43 

Japanese Are Confined to the West . 43 

Japanese Occupations and Competition . 43 

Japanese Farming Exaggerated . 43 

Japanese City Trades Mostly Small-Scale Enterprises. . 43-44 

Japanese Not a Social “Burden” . 44 

PART VI. 

Anti-Japanese Agitation: 

1. Its History . 45 

2 . The Opinion of the Industrial Commission . 45 

3. The Asiatic Exclusion League . 45-46 

4. The School Question . 43 

5. The Restaurant Smashing . 43 

6 . Politicians as Agitators and Their Villification of the 

Japanese Race . 46-47 

7. Dr. Jordan’s Conception of the “.Japanese Problem” _ 47-48 
































Japanese Immigration 

ITS STATUS IN CALIFORNIA 


INTRODUCTORY. 

I In 1907 an “informal agreement” was entered into between 
the American and Japanese governments, whereby immigration 
to this country, of laborers directly from Japan as well as migra¬ 
tion of Japanese from Hawaii, Canada and Mexico, is prohibited^ 
And notwithstanding a most effective administration by Japan 
of the said agreement, agitation against Japanese has not ceased. 
It is vigorous as ever, if not more so than it was before the restric¬ 
tion was put in practice. 

In view of such situation, it is deemed advisable that the intelli¬ 
gent Americans should be furnished with facts pertaining to 
Japanese immigration and its present status, so that they them¬ 
selves can better judge the whole question rather than to have it 
interpreted by the Asiatic Exclusion League and other interested 
persons. With such an end in view, I have undertaken to prepare 
the present pamphlet. It purposes to be no more than an un¬ 
biased statement of the more obvious facts concerning Japanese 
immigration and its status in this State of California. 

As to the sources upon which the pamphlet is based, I may be 
permitted to say first of all that I have taken a keen but ob¬ 
jective interest in the question ever since 1900, when it seemed to 
assume an acuteness. Added to this fact, I worked as a “Special 
Agent” for the United States Immigration Commission of 1907. 
The Commission made an exhaustive inquiry into the general 



question of immigration throughout the country. My particular 
function as its agent was to look into the Japanese immigration 
situation here in the State and thus I had an ample opportunity 
to familiarize myself with the subject. The results of that 
investigation are now made public. In addition to this informa¬ 
tion, I have relied upon such sources as the Annual Report of 
Commissioner General of Immigration, the Biennial Report of 
the State Bureau of Labor, and not the least in importance, the 
facts gathered by a “Special State Investigation of 1909/’ which 
also made an extensive study of the “Japanese Question.” 


PART I. 

HISTORY AND EXTENT OF JAPANESE IMMIGRATION. 


Just when Japanese began to come to this country is pretty 
difficult to determine. It is certain, however, that under the rule 
of Tokugawa dynasty, emigration from Japan was prohibited 
under the pain of death, or more precisely since the adoption by 
it of the policy of exclusion and inclusion in 1638 till 1868. 
There was no emigration. True, in 1854 Japan entered into a 
commercial treaty with the United States and subsequently with 
various European powers, but that fact did not alter the Japanese 
policy in regard to emigration. In 1868 the Tokugawa govern¬ 
ment was overthrown and the present Imperial government was 
simultaneously installed. The new government was radical, 
indeed, revolutionary. Thus among other things, emigration was 
no longer put under the ban. Emigration became possible though 
emigration of laborers was not legalized till 1885. 

Yet, curiously enough, the Report of the U. S. Treasury De¬ 
partment for 1893 mentions that between 1861 and 1870 218 
Japanese came to this country. That this was likely true is 
evidenced by several other facts. Joseph Heco, a boy apprentice 
aboard a Japanese vessel plying between Osaka and Yedo (Tokio) , 
which was ’wrecked, was rescued along with other members of 
the crew and brought over to America. That was in 1850. Heco 
remained in the United States for more than a decade and had 
romantic experiences. These are interestingly told in his “Narra¬ 
tive of a Japanese.” The book incidentally gives accounts of 
innumerable cases of Japanese cast-offs rescued and brought 
over, just as he was, to this country between 1850 and 1864. In 
1866 there came to New York two of Dr. Verbeck’s students, the 
veteran Dutch missionary to Japan. In 1868 some forty Japanese 
were brought to California by a Dutchman named Schnael(?). 
Dr. Nitobe in his “Intercourse Between the United States and 
Japan,” gives evidences of Japanese migration from Hawaii to 
the continent as early as in 1870. 

3 


According to the reports of the United States Superintendent 
and, later of the United States Commissioner General of Immi¬ 
gration the number of Japanese immigrants and that of entire 
immigrants, who annually entered the country since 1869 was as 
follows: 


No. of Japanese No. of Total 


Year. Immigrants. Immigrants. 

1869 . 63 352,000 

1870 . 48 387,000 

1871 . 78 321,000 

1872 . 17 404,000 

1873 . 9 459,000 

1874 . 21 313,000 

1875 . 3 227,000 

1876 . 4 169,000 

1877 . 7 141,000 

1878 . 2 138,000 

1879 . 4 177,000 

1880 . 4 457,000 

1881 . 11 669,000 

1882 . 5 788,000 

1883 . 27 603,000 

1884 ..*. 20 518,000 

1885 . 49 395,000 

1886 . 194 334,000 

1887 . 229 490,000 

1888 . 404 546,000 

1889 . 640 444,000 

1890 . 691 455,000 

1891 . 1,136 560,000 

1892 . 1,498 579,000 

1893 . 1,648 439,000 

1894 . 1,739 285,000 

1895 . 480 258,000 

1896 . 1,110 343,000 

1897 . 1,526 230,000 

1898 . 2,230 229,000 

1899 . 2,844 311,000 

1900 . 6,618 448,000 

1901 . 4,931 487,000 

1902 . 5,025 648,000 

1903 . 6,923 857,000 

1904 . 7,674 812,000 

1905 . 3,638 1,026,000 

5906 . 8,636 1,100,000 

1907 . 10,230 1,285,000 

1908 . 9,544 782,000 

1909 . 3,111 751,000 

1910 . 2,720 1,041,000 

1911 . 4,282 878,000 


4 













































In other words, the respective number of their immigration by 
decades was as follows: 


No. of Japanese No. of Total 
Decade. Immigrants. Immigrants. 

1861-1870 . 218 2,314,000 

1871-1880 . 149 2,812,000 

1881-1890 . 2,270 5,246,000 

1891-1900 . 20,826 3,687,000 

1901-1910 . 62,432 8,785,000 


Total . 85,985 22,846,000 


The figures concerning Japanese immigration do not include 
those who migrated from Hawaii after its annexation. Thus it 
may be proper to add to the total of 85,895 15,000 more or there¬ 
abouts to cover the extent of that migration. Even on such a 
basis it is clearly manifest that Japanese immigration has formed 
but a negligibly insignificant portion of general immigration. 

In the earlier years, in fact, till we come to 1886, their annual 
immigration was less than one hundred. Since then their number 
gradually increased. This was due to two causes: Emigration 
of laborers was legalized in 1885 and the demand for their labor 
in California increased as the result of the Chinese exclusion 
laws. In 1891 the number reached over one thousand for the 
first time. About the same number immigrated for the following- 
six years. And in 1898 it reached over 2,000. In 1900 as many 
as 6,618 came. But the number never exceeded 10,000 but once 
in the entire period. That was in 1907 and the excess was by 
230 only. That unusual phenomenon was undoubtedly caused A 
by the anticipation of the agreement of 1907, which, as remarked 
before, practically put a stop to immigration of Japanese laborers. 
When that agreement became effective the number instantly 
dropped, as is indicated by the table. 

Next, a word may be said as to the extent of Japanese departure 
from this country. The Immigration Bureau made no record of 
returning aliens till very recently. Fortunately, however, the 
Japanese government has been recording the returning immi¬ 
grants. According to this authority, the number of Japanese 
who had annually returned from the United States and the per- 


5 











centage these formed of the number who had emigrated to the 
same since 1886 was as follows r 1 


Year. Number. Percentage. 

1886 . 70 36.0 

1887 . 65 28.3 

1888 . 67 16.5 

1889 . 76 11.8 

1890 . 73 10.5 

1891 . 168 14.7 

1892 . 343 16.2 

1893 . 356 21.6 

1894 . 391 22.4 

1895 . 347 72.2 

1896 . 367 33.0 

1897 . 388 25.4 

1898 . 671 30.0 

1899 . 833 29.2 

1900 . 1,006 15.2 

1901 . 866 17.5 

1902 . 1,013 20.0 

1903 . 1,028 14.8 

1904 . 922 12.0 

1905 . 1,791 49.3 

1906 . 2,881 33.3 

1907 . 1,903 18.6 

1908 . 5,493 57.7 

1909 . 4,538 145.8 

1910 . 5,101 187.5 


In my mind the table is not without omissions. But if it can 
be used to indicate the phenomenon, about 20 per cent of the 
emigrants has been annually returning to Japan. The higher 
percentage for 1895 and 1896 was due to non-emigration rather 
than to the actual number returning. The same situation for 
1905, however, was partly caused by the large number returning 
and partly by the fall in the number emigrating. The curious 
situation that has obtained since 1908 was wholly due to the 
effective administration of the agreement of 1907. 

Having examined the extent of Japanese immigrating and 
departing, we will now direct our attention to their number resid¬ 
ing in the country. According to the United States census the 
number of Japanese residents was as follows: 


Year. Number. 

1870 . 55 

1880 . 148 

1890 . 2,039 


Year. Number. 

1900 . 24,326. 

1910 . 71,722 s 


1 Compiled from the figures given in Imperial Statistical Annuals of 
Japan, 1886-1910, inclusive. 


6 

































I have tried to estimate the probable number for the intereensal 
years since 1890, which is shown below: 1 


Year. 

N umber. 

Year. 

Number. 

1890 . 

. 2,039 

1901 . 

. 28,391 

1891 . 

. 2,907 

1902 . 

. 32,403 

1892 . 

. 4,162 

1903 . 

. 38,288 

1893 . 

. 5,454 

1904 . 

. 53,764 

1894 . 

. 6,802 

1905 . 

.61,144 

1895 . 

. 7,935 

1906 . 

. 66,899 

1896 . 

. 8,678 

1907 . 

. 75,226 

1897 . 

. 9,816 

1908 . 

. 79,277 

1898 . 

.11,375 

1909 . 


1899 . 


1910. 

. 75,469 

1900 . 

. 24,326 




Thus according to the census there were only 55 Japanese resid¬ 
ing in the whole country in 1870. That number increased to 148 
in 1880. A decade later it reached to 2,039. During the next 
decade Japanese immigration was quite extensive, and conse¬ 
quently the number residing in the country increased also. 
In 1898 the number was no more than 11,400, but two years later 
that number jumped to 24,000. The growth during the last 
decade was more significant. There were as many as 75,000 
Japanese in 1910. The largest number residing, however, was in 
1908, it being nearly 80,000. So much, then, for the history and 
extent of Japanese immigration during the past fifty years. 


1 Calculated on the basis of the number immigrating and departing. 
Since some of these figures are not very accurate, the estimate should 
not be rigidly interpreted. 
























PART II. 

CHARACTER OF JAPANESE IMMIGRANTS. 


We will begin with an examination of the occupation of the 
immigrants. According to the Japanese official statistics the 
occupational distribution of the immigrants when they left Japan 
was as follows: 1 


Year Number 



Students 

Merchants 

Farmers and 
Fishermen 

Artisans 

Laborers 

Others 

Total 

1886 . 

237 

38 


3 

44 

10 

332 

1887 . 

267 

96 



88 

9 

461 

1888 . 

196 

171 


" i 3 

184 

35 

599 

1889 . 

224 

150 


5 

350 

29 

757 

1890 . 

198 

172 


15 

184 

42 

1,461 

1891 . 

232 

275 

' “i 

33 

246 

674 

1,461 

1892 . 

239 

373 

860 

427 

291 

154 

2,344 

1893 . 

220 

492 

404 

147 

340 

375 

1,978 

1894 . 

182 

236 

593 

94 

254 

138 

1,497 

1895 . 

193 

297 

30 

5 

424 

100 

1,049 

1896 . 

211 

360 

8 

23 

1,066 

96 

1,764 

1897 . 

244 

390 

527 

84 

6,008 

102 

1,945 

1898 . 

325 

805 

135 

11 

1,287 

373 

2,936 

1899 . 

481 

1,882 

87 

170 

3,742 

580 

6,936 

1900 . 

437 

2,159 

1,463 

1,540 

4,366 

597 

10,562 

1901 . 

508 

627 

39 

12 

83 

717 

1,986 

1902 . 

1,283 

1,531 

96 

51 

249 

1,886 

5,096 

1903 . 

1,340 

1,745 

87 

50 

223 

1,767 

5,215 

1904 . 

1,267 

1,009 


43 

261 

1,010 

3,490 

1905 . 

868 

613 

i (37 

17 

263 

1,376 

3,124 

1906 . 

2,821 

1,215 

1,046 

22 

462 

2,896 

8,466 

1907 . 

2,972 

1,246 

1,571 

20 

664 

3,155 

9,618 

1908 . 

382 

592 

837 

28 

534 

639 

1 

3,826 


Again, according to the American official statistics the occu¬ 
pational distribution of Japanese immigrants since 1908 was as 
follows: 


1 Compiled from the figures given in Imperial Statistical Annuals of 
Japan, 1886-1910, inclusive. 


8 






































OCCUPATIONS OF JAPANESE ADMITTED AND DEPARTED, 
FISCAL YEARS 1908 TO 1911.- 1 


Occupation | 

1908 | 

1909 

1910 

1911 


Admitted 

Departed 

Admitted 

Departed 

Admitted 

Departed 

Admitted 

Departed 

Actors. 

54 

6 

10 

20 

27 

14 

16 

13 

Clergy. 

37 

18 

14 

25 

21 

18 

20 

24 

Government 









officials. 

45 

34 

45 

42 

28 

68 

51 

56 

Teachers. 

50 

16 

24 

15 

24 

41 

56 

41 

Other professional 

70 

143 

65 

94 

162 

83 

101 

151 

Clerks. 

154 

66 

56 

64 

109 

42 

87 

66 

Farmers. 

518 

698 

69 

492 

95 

551 

388 

669 

Merchants. 

951 

578 

274 

552 

291 

687 

304 

564 

Restaurant and 









hotel keepers... 

130 

70 

64 

67 

68 

116 

52 

145 

Students. 

2,018 

153 

255 

239 

288 

260 



No occupation, in¬ 








cluding women 









and children. . . 

1,299 

832 

690 

747 

695 

889 

2,400 

1,188 

Not stated. 

177 

119 

153 

684 

85 

48 

75 

21 

Total non-labor¬ 









ers, according 









to Rule 21 i. 

5,503 

2,733 

1,719 

3,041 

1,893 

2,817 

3,550 

2,938 

Barbers. 

28 

11 

9 

12 

9 

18 

22 

24 

Carpenters. 

27 

21 

12 

25 

7 

17 

19 

35 

Tailors. 

36 

38 

5 

7 

8 

11 

13 

18 

Other artisans... . 

99 

164 

7 

66 

59 

49 

57 

160 

Cooks 

96 

69 

60 

148 

77 

161 



Farm laborers.. . . 

1,031 

60 

206 

246 

260 

612 

281 

994 

Gardeners. 

18 

10 

6 

13 

5 

5 

13 

12 

Laborers. 

1,153 

1,077 

245 

344 

165 

1,156 

208 

1,094 

Servants. 

305 

300 

114 

133 

90 

112 

63 

149 

Not stated. 

1,248 

313 

49 

969 

25 

63 

56 

445 

Total laborers, ac¬ 









cording to Rule 









21 i. 

4,041 

2,063 

713 

1,963 

705 

2,207 

732 

2,931 

Total. 

9,544 

4,796 

2,432 

5,004 

2,598 

5,024 

4,282 

5,869 


According to the first table, during the first six years students 
numbered 1,354, tradesmen 902, and laborers 1,096, respectively. 
Legalization of emigration of laborers from Japan in 1885 did 
not evidently affect Japanese emigration to America. In fact, 
till we come to the year 1896 when the number of labor emigrants 
was over 1,000, laborers did not contribute to Japanese immi- 


1 Compiled from annual reports of the Commissioner General of Immi 
gration for 1909 and 1911. 


9 










































gration to this country. To make this fact plain I have given 
below the percentage of the emigrants by occupation for the 
entire period considered: 


Occupation. 

Merchants. 

Laborers. 

Students. 

Farmers and fishermen 

Artisans. 

Others . 


Percentage. 

21.5 

21.4 

21.1 

14.1 
3.8 

18.1 


Total 


100.0 


According to the American statistics we note that the number 
of labor immigrants had been greatly curtailed. Note, at the 
same time, the large number of laborers departing from the coun¬ 
try. The phenomena are the outcome of the agreement of 1907. 
Such then were the occupations of Japanese immigrants when 
they left Japau and when they were admitted into the country. 

Next, as to the sex distribution among Japanese immigrants. 
The following table gives the proportion of females among 
Japanese immigrants: 1 


Year. 

Percentage. 

Year. 

Percentage. 

1886 . 

.. 3.9 

1899 . 

. 5.8 

1887 . 

. 3.4 

1900 . 

. 3.8 

1888 . 

. 9.0 

1901 . 

. 6.4 

1-889 . 

. 4.6 

1902 . 

. 8.2 

1890 . 

. 9.0 

1903 . 

. 6.6 

1891 . 

. 9.5 

1904 . 

. 6.2 

1892 . 

. 3.2 

1905 . 

. 17.7 

1893 . 

. 6.2 

1906 . 

. 13 6 

1894 . 

. 5.3 

1907 . 

. 15.2 

1895 . 

. 10.0 

1908 . 


1896 . 

. 6.7 

1909 . 


1897 . 

. 7.6 

1911 . 

. 69 2 

1898 . 

. 5.0 




Accordingly, females formed but a very small portion of 
Japanese immigrants. In more recent years, however, their 
percentage has been steadily gaining. The phenomenal situation 
since 1909 is partly accounted for by non-immigration of male 
laborers. The increasing number of women among the immi- 

1 Compiled from the figures given in Imperial Statistical Annuals of 
Japan; those for 1909 and 1911 from the figures given in the Annual 
Report of Commissioner General of Immigration. 

10 




































grants indicates, among other things, a greater tendency among 
them to settle. 

The age distribution of Japanese immigrants according to the 
Commissioner General of Immigration was as follows: 


1902 

1903 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 


Under 14 

14 to 44 

45 Years 

Years. 

Years. 

and Over. 

4.3 

94.6 

0.9 

2.5 

96.5 

0.9 

1.3 

96.1 

2.5 

1.1 

96.7 

2.8 

1.0 

97.3 

1.2 

0.8 

98.2 

1.0 

4.5 

92.4 

2.1 

6.5 

91.7 

1.8 


Although the situation has slightly changed after the agreement 
of 1907 went into effect, we note that over 90 per cent of Japanese 
immigrants when admitted into the country were between 14 and 
44 years of age. This fact, together with the fact of small propor¬ 
tion of females clearly indicates that Japanese here in America 
are in the stage of greatest productivity. Because of their youth¬ 
ful age Japanese immigrants have been less susceptible to sick¬ 
ness and have been peculiarly free from difficulties, pecuniary or 
otherwise, so commonly experienced by other immigrants that 
sought the American shores. 

Before specifically taking up the amount of money brought by 
Japanese immigrants, it may be interesting to know what has 
been the general tendency in this regard. According to the 
Commissioner General of Immigration, the per capita amount of 
money brought by entire immigrants since 1896 was as follows: 


Year. 

Amount. 

Year. 

Amour 

1896 . 

. $11 

1904 . 

. $26 

1897 . 

. 15 

1905 . 

. 24 

1898 . 

. 17 

1906 . 

. 23 

1899 . 

. 17 

1907 . 

. 20 

1900 . 

. 15 

190S . 


1901 

. 15 

1909 . 

. 23 

1902 . 

. 16 

1910 . 


1903 . 

. 19 

1911 . 



11 




























There has been a gradual increase in the per capita amount of 
money brought by immigrants. The table below shows the per 
capita amount of money brought by races t 1 


Race. 

1900 

1905 

1911 


. $39.59 

$37.78 

$40.70 


. 8.82 

16.77 

22.10 

Italian (North) .. 

Irish . ..*.. 

. 22.49 

. 14.50 

26.79 

26.19 

34.10 

42.70 

Hebrew.. 

. 8.67 

14.04 

21.50 

Rob 5 *!* . 

. 9.94 

13.12 

21.40 

Scandinavian.. 

. 16.65 

25.75 

36.60 

Slovak .. 

. 11.69 

15.43 

23.30 

"Magyar ,.. 

. 10.39 

15.10 

26.50 

Croatian-Slavonian. 

. 12.51 

15.36 

24.40 

Russian i .. 

. 14.94 

36.65 

26.60 

English. 

German. 

. 38.90 

. 28.53 

57.65 

43.72 

59.80 

54.50 


In 1900, next to the Scotch, whose per capita amount was 
$41.51, the Japanese headed the list, followed by the English. 
In 1905 the order altered somewhat. The English headed the 
list followed by the German, the Japanese and the Croatian- 
Slavonian in the order. In 1911 again, the English stood at the 
head followed by the German, the Irish and the Japanese. It 
ought to be stated here that during the year 1911 of the total 
Japanese immigrants of 4,575, women numbered 3,166, who were 
wives and wives to be of those who were already in the country. 
Therefore, there was no need for these women to carry much 
money with them. In any case, financially considered, Japanese 
immigrants belong to the most well-to-do class of all immigrants. 

Next, as to illiteracy among Japanese immigrants. From the 
various facts gleaned, especially those relative to their occupation, 
we would expect a low percentage of illiteracy among them. But 
the following is the report of the Immigration Bureau: 

Number of persons in each hundred immigrants over fourteen years of 
age who, according to their own statement, cannot write, or cannot read and 
write, their own language, from those races (not nations) which contributed 
upwards of 2,000 immigrants to the United States during any of the past 
four fiscal years: 


1 Compiled from the Annual Report of Commissioner General of Im¬ 
migration. 


12 
















Northern and Western Europe (chiefly Teutonic and Keltic) — 



1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

Scotch . 

0.7 

0.5 

1.0 

1.4 

Scandinavian. 

0.6 

0.5 

1.1 

1.2 

English. 

1.3 

1.0 

1.4 

1.4 

Bohemian and Moravian . 

1.7 

1.8 

2.1 

1.6 

Finnish. 

1.8 

1.5 

3.1 

4.0 

French. 

2.7 

2.6 

2.1 

7.9 

Irish. 

3.8 

2.3 

2.2 

1.7 

Dutch and Flemish. 

5.3 

4.0 

4.2 

3.4 

German. 

4.2 

5.0 

7.0 

7.1 

Italian (North) . 

14.0 

12.0 

10.0 

8.6 

Average of above. 

3.7 

3.7 

4.3 

4.0 

Southern and Eastern Europe (chiefly Slavic and Iberic) — 
Armenian. ... ... 

24.0 

29.7 

Spanish. 

10.1 

9.8 

33.5 

14.8 

Magyar. 

11.6 

12.7 

10.5 

11.1 

Greek. 

22.4 

23.5 

30.6 

28.5 

Russian. 

30,8' 

39.0 

44.5 

41.4 

Slovak. 

25.0 

22.0 

21.5 

23.6 

Koumanian. 

28.8 

36.5 

39.3 

38.7 

Dalmatian, Bosnian and Herzegovinian .. 

38.4 

44.3 

49.7 

44.5 

Polish. 

39.6 

37.1 

41.2 

40.4 

Croatian and Slovenian . 

38.2 

39.9 

36.4 

30.0 

Bulgarian, Servian and Montenegrin 

38.9 

41.8 

44.8 

35.6 

Lithuanian. 

56.9 

56.8 

62.4 

60.2 

Italian (South) . 

56.4 

53.8 

53.3 

50.7 

Ruthenian. 

62.6 

56.3 

55.8 

52.0 

Portuguese . 

66.7 

58.6 

76.6 

64.8 

Average of above . 

42.2 

42.0 

42.2 

40.1 

Other Races— 

Chinese. 

5.0 

5.6 



Cuban . 

7.7 

4.7 

11.7 

2.5 

Japanese. 

39.3 

42.7 

31.2 

30.5 

Hebrew. 

23.3 

27.0 

29.0 

30.3 

African (black) . 

15.8 

12.3 

16.2 

20.0 

Syrian. 

53.6 

54.8 

55.1 

54.7 

Mexican. 


... 


59.4 


According to the table, the number of illiterates among Japan¬ 
ese is smaller than that among the south and east Europeans, but 
is greater than that among north and west Europeans. But I 
seriously doubt the accuracy of these statistics, at least, so far as 
Japanese are concerned, on three positive grounds: First, a 
system of compulsory education has been in force in Japan during 
the past forty years, and as we have already seen that the major¬ 
ity of Japanese immigrants are young men. Second, common 
laborers formed but only 21.4 per cent of the total immigration 


13 


































during the entire period under consideration, and it is unthink¬ 
able from what I know that all these laborers should be illiterates. 
Third, the Immigration Commission found that the literacy 
among Japanese here in the West compares favorably with that 
among Europeans in whose nations exist the best systems of edu¬ 
cation. 

But inasmuch as I shall later take up this topic in another con¬ 
nection, I shall here simply present what the census for 1910 has 
recently made public. The following table shows the illiteracy of 
the population of the State of California by races: 


Race. 


Race. 


Native whites. 

.. 0.5 

Negroes. 

. 7.0 

Foreign-born whites . .. 

.. 10.0 

Indians. 

. 49.0 

Japanese. 

8.6 

Average. 

. 3.7 

Chinese . 

.. 15.5 




Further, 
follows: 

the composition of 

these foreign-born 

whites was a 

Race. 


Race. 


Germans . . . 

. 14.8 

Swedes. 

. 5.1 

Italians . . . 

. 12.3 

Portuguese. 

. 4.3 

Irish. 

.. 10.1 

French . 

. 3.4 

English . . .. 

. 9.4 

Austrians. 

. 3.3 

Canadians . . 

. 8.6 

Russians. 

. 3.2 

Mexicans . . 

. 6.5 

Others . 

. 18.8 


In other words, the percentage of illiteracy among the foreign- 
born whites in California is higher by 1.4 per cent as compared 
with that among the Japanese immigrants. Note also the com¬ 
position of these foreign-born whites. By far the great majority 
are those from the leading nations of Europe. Yet the percentage 
of illiteracy among them is high. One of the favorite arguments 
of anti-Japanese agitators such as “ignorant Jap coolies” has 
evidently no meaning in the light of the above facts. So much 
for the facts relating to Japanese immigrants upon their arrival 
in this country. 


14 





















PART III. 


GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF JAPANESE IMMI¬ 
GRANTS. 

The regular American ports of entry for Japanese have been 
and still are San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Oregon. But 
Seattle did not begin to receive Japanese regularly till about 
1890, though a. few sailors made appearance there as early as in 
1879. Neither did Portland receive them till 1895, although it 
saw the immigration of 200 Japanese in 1887. Most Japanese 
immigrants entered through the port of San Francisco. Natur¬ 
ally, therefore, Japanese resided in and about this port city from 
which they radiated as time advanced. In 1890, according to 
the census, the 2,039 Japanese were distributed as follows: 


District. Number. 

North Atlantic States. 247 

South Atlantic States. 55 

\North Central States . Ill 

South Central States . 61 

Western States . 1,559 


Again, in 1900 and 1910 as follows: 


District. 


1900 1910 

Number. Number. 


New England States ., 
Middle Atlantic States 
South Atlantic States 
E. N. Central States . 
E. S. Central States . 
W. N. Central States . 
W. S. Central States . 

Mountain States. 

Pacific States .. 


89 286 

446 1,609 

29 150 

126 455 

7 OQ 

223 966 

30 426 

5,107 10,209 

18,269 57,628 


Thus Ave note the gradual eastward migration of Japanese 
immigrants. Still by far the majority of them are yet confined 
to the western states, California containing the largest number. 
In 1910 the Japanese population in California w r as estimated at 
55,000, :giade up approximately of 45,000 males, 6,000 females, 


15 
















and 4,000 children. Their distribution by county and the per¬ 
centage they formed in each, were as follows: 


County. 

No. 

Per Cent. 

County. 

No. 

Per Cent. 

Los Angeles ... 

. 11,500 

2.2 

Kings. 

500 

3.1 

San Francisco . . 

. 6,900 

1.6 

Butte. 

400 

1.7 

Sacramento .... 

. 6,000 

8.0 

San Bernardino .. 

400 

9.0 

Alameda. 

. 4,400 

1.8 

San Diego . 

400 

0.6 

San Joaquin . . . 

. 4,300 

8.0 

Yuba. 

400 

4.1 

Santa Clara .... 

. 3,100 

3.9 

Imperial. 

360 

2.7 

Fresno. 

. 3,000 

4.0 

San Mateo. 

350 

1.3 

Yolo. 

. 1,500 

9.0 

Colusa. 

350 

7.0 

Contra Costa ... 

. 1,000 

3.3 

San Luis Obispo.. 

300 


Placer . 

. 1,000 


Sutter. 

300 

5.1 

Orange . 

990 

2.6 

Kern. 

340 

0.6 

Santa Barbara . 

960 

3.4 

Tehama. 

200 

1.9 

Sonoma. 

880 

1.8 

Stanislaus. 

190 

0.8 

Santa Cruz .... 

860 


Merced. 

150 

1.2 

Monterey. 

780 


San Benito. 

150 


Tulare. 

786 

2.2 

Napa. 

100 


Solano. 

700 

2.5 

Others . 

40 


Yentura. 

670 

3.7 



■ - 

Riverside. 

650 

. . 

Total. 

55,000 

2.1 


First of all, according to the above table, Japanese are scat¬ 
tered all over the State. However, Los Angeles County contained 
the largest number, which was 11,500, while San Francisco and 
Sacramento the next largest number of Japanese. Alameda and 
San Joaquin contained little over 4,000 each, while Santa Clara 
and Fresno about 3,000 each. Three counties, Yolo, Contra Costa 
and Placer had about 1,000 each. Their number gradually 
diminish in the remaining counties. However, the percentage 
they formed of the entire population in each county does not 
follow the same order of their actual number. Thus in Yolo 
they formed 9 per cent, which was the highest, and in Sacramento 
and San Joaquin 8 per cent, which was the next highest. In Los 
Angeles they formed but 2.2 per cent, while in San Francisco 
1.6 per cent. In no case then had they formed more than 9 per 
cent of the entire population even by counties. 

The principal cities containing Japanese and the -percentage 
they formed of the total population of each were as follows: 


City. 

No. 

Per Cent. 

City. 

No. 

Per Cent. 

Los Angeles .... 

. 7,938 

2.5 

San Jose. 

790 

2.6 

San Francisco .. 

. 6,988 

1.6 

Alameda . . .. 

692 

3.0 

Sacramento .... 

. 2,452 

5.6 

Berkeley . . .. 

686 

1.7 

Oakland. 

. 1,835 

1.2 

Stockton . . .. 

495 

2.1 


16 






































Of the Japanese in cities, Los Angeles contained the largest 
and San Francisco the next largest number, they being 7,900 and 
6,900 respectively. Sacramento had little over 2,400. But these 
formed 5.6 per cent of its entire population. The city of Ala¬ 
meda had only 700 Japanese, but these formed 3 per cent of its 
population. In spite of their large numbers, they formed only 

2.5 per cent of the population of the city of Los Angeles, while 

1.6 per cent of that of San Francisco. 


17 


PART IV. 


ECONOMIC STATUS OF JAPANESE IN CALIFORNIA. 

Below is given an estimated occupational distribution of 
Japanese in California: 


Occupation. 

Number. 

Occupation. 

Number. 

Officials, teachers, clergy. 

120 

Railway employees . 

1,500 

Students . 

1,000 

Factories and canneries.. 

500 

Farmers. 

4,500 

Salt field hands. 

300 

Farm hands. 

20,000 

Others. 

3,580 

Merchants. 

4,000 

No occupation . 

8,500 

Hired by merchants. 

Domestic servants. 

6,000 

5,000 

Total. 

55,000 


Though perhaps the best obtainable estimate, none of the above 
figures should be rigidly interpreted for several reasons. The 
majority of farmers being mostly tenants, share or “contract” 
lack permanent character. Independent farmers of to-day may 
become mere farm hands of to-morrow and vice versa. The ma¬ 
jority of merchants are the keepers of insignificantly small shops. 
They, too, come and go in a quick order. Laborers are mostly 
unskilled, therefore they shift from one occupation to another, 
according to seasons, and, indeed, according to their whims and 
fancies. Clerks may become domestic servants at any moment. 
Domestic servants may take fancy to farms or to railroads. Farm 
hands may become gang hands, and vice versa. These, again, 
may work in canneries. They can shift about in these various 
occupations without any difficulty, because, in the first place, 
none of the occupations require any high degree of specialized 
skill, and in the second place, these Japanese are mostly un¬ 
married young men between twenty and forty. A knowledge of 
English is necessary in certain of the occupations, but that too 
need not be more than elementary. There are hardly any illiter¬ 
ates among them as far as their own language is concerned. Most 
young men are graduates of middle schools and have enough 
education to qualify for any of the occupatioas enumerated. 
Those with no occupation are mostly women and children. In 


18 














other words, the table is set forth simply to give a normalized 
snap-shot picture of the occupational status of the Japanese in 
California. And the most striking fact about this picture is the 
narrowness of the field of Japanese activity. Be that as it may, 
we will examine somewhat in detail the more important of these 
occupations. 

Japanese in Agriculture. 

Nearly 50 per cent of Japanese immigrants are engaged in 
horticultural and agricultural industries, either as farmers or as 
farm hands, the latter predominating in number. There are 
doubtless several reasons for this state of affairs. First of all, 
for centuries Japanese have been an agricultural race. Japanese 
labor immigrants here were almost exclusively drawn from the 
agricultural classes of Japan. It was natural, therefore, that 
they betook themselves to the industry as soon as the opportunity 
was offered to them. And already in the early eighties a few of 
them found their way to the orchards of the Vaca Valley. In 
the latter eighties a group of about thirty Japanese left San 
Francisco and went to the Sacramento Valley. A similar group 
landed in the Santa Clara Valley at about the same time. At 
that time agricultural labor in the State was practically monopo¬ 
lized by the Chinese. But the Restriction Law of 1882 provid¬ 
ing for exclusion of Chinese laborers,—“skilled or unskilled and 
those engaged in mining for ten years,” began to curtail their 
labor supply. By 1890 the number of Japanese reached little 
over 1,000 and the farmers of California began to experiment 
Japanese as farm hands. They were then gradually substituted 
for Chinese, who were growing old and weak. The substitution 
was inevitable—a case of the survival of the fittest. 

Possessing all the required qualifications for the kind of labor 
needed in the industries and having organized themselves so as 
to meet the demand more efficiently, they have attained their 
present important position in agriculture of California. To show 
that position substantially I can do no better than to quote the 
“Report on the Japanese Question in California,” made by a 
special commission appointed by the State in 1909, which reads 
in part as follows: 


19 


“The investigation of Japanese in agriculture covered visits 
to 4,102 farms scattered over thirty-six counties and growing 
almost every crop common to the State of California. Of this 
total number of farms visited, 1,733 were operated by Japanese 
farmers as owners, cash lessees and share lessees. The remaining 
2,369 farms were operated by white farmers, being equally dis¬ 
tributed between those employing white help, exclusively, and 
those employing mixed races, including Japanese. These 4,102 
farms contained 697,236 acres and produced crops valued ap¬ 
proximately at $28,000,000 annually. On these farms there were 
employed during the past year an aggregate of 80,984 persons 
of all races, 9,458 of whom were women, the length of employ¬ 
ment varying from a few days to a year. On the 2,369 farms 
operated by white farmers, employing a total of 63,198 persons, 
53.4 per cent of the labor employed was white, 36.4 per cent 
Japanese, and 10.2 per cent various other races, including 
Chinese, Mexicans, Hindus and Indians. On the 1,733 farms 
operated by Japanese farmers employing 17,784 persons, 96 
per cent of the labor employed was Japanese, while 872 or 4 per 
cent, was equally divided between male and female white; in 
other words, on the basis of numbers employed, the Japanese 
furnished practically 50 per cent, or one-half, of the labor neces¬ 
sary to grow and harvest the crop, valued at $28,000,000 pro¬ 
duced on the farms visited in this investigation.” 

The farms on which Japanese were not employed were, as a 
rule, much smaller than those on which they were employed, the 
former averaging 159 acres, the latter 357, demonstrating the 
necessity of a class of temporary laborers on large acreage. 

Another important fact developed by this investigation was 
the relation between the character of the crop grown and the 
employment of Japanese. On the farms where whites were em¬ 
ployed exclusively, no berries or nursery products were grown 
and very little vegetables outside of beans. 

The relation of the character of the crop to the employment 
of Japanese is well brought out in the following : 

On the 2,369 farms operated by white farmers the percentage 


20 


of labor furnished by Japanese, according to the principal crops 
grown, was as follows: 


Per Cent. 


Berries. 87.2 

Sugar beets . 66.3 

Nursery products . 57.3 

Grapes. 51.3 

Vegetables. 45.7 


Per Cent. 


Citrus fruits. 38.1 

Deciduous fruits . 36.5 

Hops. 8.7 

Hay and grain. 6.6 

Miscellaneous. 19.6 


It was further developed in this investigation that the fruit 
crops peculiar to California required the labor of a large number 
of persons for a very short period of time. The average dura¬ 
tion of employment on farms visited w r as less than two months 
in the year, 68.3 per cent of the whites and 61.6 per cent of the 
Japanese were employed less than three months, and only 16.6 
per cent of the whites and 10.7 per cent of the Japanese were im- 
ployed permanently.” 

The following two charts will clearly show the relative position 
of Japanese and others engaged in agriculture of California: 1 


1 These charts are reproduced from the Fourteenth Biennial Report of 
Bureau of Labor Statistics of California, pp. 270-273. 


21 













CHART I. 

Race of Farm Labor Employed, According to Principal Crop Grown. 

“In this chart there is presented the percentage of farm labor of different 
races employed, according to the principal crop grown. These percentages 
are based on a record of 2,369 farms operated by white farmers. These 
farms were located in practically all the important agricultural and horti¬ 
cultural sections of the State. They contained 613,852 acres, on which were 
raised crops to the value of $23,000,000. On these farms there were em¬ 
ployed during the year a total of 63,198 persons. The chart shows at a 
glance the crops which are dependent upon either white or Japanese labor.” 












































































































































































































CHART II. 

Race of Farm Labor Employed, According to Principal Occupations. 

“In this chart the percentages of white and Japanese labor is shown ac¬ 
cording to the various occupations. Reading down the list of occupations, 
it shows the class of work which the white farm laborer dislikes and which 
is now performed by the Japanese, while reading up it shows the class of 
work which is still congenial to the white farm laborer, and in which the 
Japanese have been unable to gain a foothold. The white fruit-packers 
and fruit-cutters are practically all female.” 


♦ 


24 


o 

© 


o 

QO 


o 

r- 


o 

© 


a 

<v © 

<Z) 

A< 


© 


© 

co 


© 

Cl 



H 

DC 

< 

I 

O 


- 

• 

• 

i 

, 

1 

• 

» 

• 

1 

• 

i 












1 

• 

t 

• 

i 

CO 

J-i 

a> 

rc5 

c3 

CO 

C-* 

a> 

p 

« 

» 

• 

• 

• 

i 

• 

• 

• 

• 

« 

• 

» 

• 

CO 

u 

O 

• *-+ 

% 

• 

* 

« 

• 

• 

1 

Uj 

o 

t 

a 

4-» 

© 

* 

• 

• 

• 

• 

I 

CO 

1-4 

a? 

v> 

fa« 

O 

o 

• •—4 

a 

o 

£ 

*0 

a 

c3 

C2 

CO 

t- 

O 

P- 

ft 

a 

ca 

CO 

u 

O' 

CO 

(-4 

0> 

• 

• 

CO 

fal 

a> 

o 

• M 

P 

CO 

fa. 

a> 

I 

CO 

fa. 

a> 

1 

CO 

• *-* 

P4 

a? 

S 


Vfa 

O 

•*—> 

o 

& 

O 

• ^ 

P* 

CO 

Ui 

o 

<3 

P 

^3 

o 

• *-4 

Cl 

fa 

0) 

*-> 

CO 

>> 

r-4 

J-i 

<P 

CQ 

20 

4-> 

O 

O 

> 

Celery 

W 

■4—» 

a> 

a> 

« 

CO 

-M 

o 

o 

ca 

o 

p 

co 

*-4 

O 

0> 

a 

z 

u 

CU 

4-* 

• M 

3 

C-4 

fa 

*fa> 

§ 

fa 

a 

o 

M 

t-M 

s 

Cj 

O) 

H 


a> 

*-• 

& 

£ 


<D 

CO 

a> 

a 

cc 

p 

c5 

►"3 



Fruit cuttefcs 






























































































































































































The Chronicle, which evidently had a fuller text of the Report 
than its “Resume” before me, quotes from it further: “It is not 
mere opinion, based on concensus of observation, no theory 
predicated on an analysis of conditions and requirements, but 
the positive expression of a majority of the growers of fruits 
and such products as are affected by the demand, that this 
labor must continue to be drawn from sources beyond the United 
States. The competency of both Chinese and Japanese to meet 
all the requirements by these industries of the orchard, the vine¬ 
yard and the field is unquestioned and unquestionable.” 

Again, “Comparing the individual Japanese laborer and the 
individual white laborer of the typical class that is now avail¬ 
able in the field and from which is recruited all the white help 
now obtainable, the investigation discloses a higher standard of 
the Japanese individual. 

“The report points out the peculiar adaptability of the Japan¬ 
ese as one of the most important factors in his value as a 
laborer. No matter how unattractable or undependable, he may 
show himself in the absence of active competition, he reforms 
quickly in the face of competition, while the white man is the 
same always, and will not adopt himself to disagreeable or un¬ 
desirable conditions.” 1 

This brings me to a discussion of Japanese competition. 
Speaking of the wages of Japanese farm hands, the same report 
says: “The average wage paid-by white farmers to white help 
was $1.38 per day with board and $1.80 per day without board, 
and to the Japanese $1.49 per day with board and $1.54 per day 
without board. This, however, cannot be taken as the average 
earnings of the Japanese, for 49.2 per cent of the entire number 
employed were working by contract or piece work, under which 
condition the earnings of the Japanese are much higher than 
those of the whites. 

The average wages paid to Japanese farm labor by Japanese 
farmers were $1.57 per day with board and $1.65 without board, 
showing that the Japanese were better paid by their own country¬ 
men than by the white farmer,—this for two reasons: first, that 

1 The San Francisco “Chronicle,” May 30, 1910. 


26 



he is in greater demand by his own countrymen, and second, that 
only 12.5 per cent of the total number employed by Japanese 
farmers were working by contract or piece 'work.” 

This situation is further substantiated by the result of the 
investigation by the Immigration Commission. The following 
table gives “comparison between the average wages of the Japan¬ 
ese on a time basis and the averages of other races 



Regular 1 

with 

Board. | 

Regular 

without 

Board. 

Temporary 

with 

Board. 

Temporary 

without 

Board. 


U 


U 


U 

<U 

t- 



1 

bfl 

c? 

V 

to 

rt 

X 

bfl 

a 

<u 

x> 

bo 

C3 

Race. 

s 

u 

<L) 

a 

V* 

<u 

s 

<L> 

s 

OJ 


i 

< 1 

55 

< 


< 

55 

<; 

Miscellaneous, white. 

411 

$1,311 

199 

$1,889 

53 

$1,286 | 

286 

$1,855 

Italian . 

101 

1.108 1 

22 

1.667 

181 

1.121 



Mexican. 


. . . . 1 

85 

1.422 



*82 

1.721 

Chinese . 

108 

1.406 

26 

1.559 

*35 

1.454 

99 

1.743 

Japanese . 

93 

1.396 

863 

1.633 

40 

1.421 


1.615 

Hindus . 


... . 1 

1 66 

1.534 


.... ||253 

1.441 


Commenting upon the table the report says: “It will be seen 
that the average wages for both Japanese and Chinese regularly 
employed and receiving board, $1,396 and $1,406, respectively, 
are higher than those for ‘miscellaneous white’ men, $1,311 and 
Italians $1,108. ‘Miscellaneous white’ men were paid $1,889 
per day without board, as against $1,623 paid to Japanese. . . -” 1 

On the basis of 3,650 Japanese farm laborers investigated, the 
same report states further: “Of the 863 regular employees not 
boarded, 86.4 per cent received between $1.50 and $1.75, and 
of the 2,654 temporary men not boarded, 90.3 per cent received 
from $1.50 to $1.75, inclusive.” 2 

The report concludes, “White employers nearly always prefer 
white men as teamsters and usually state that they would prefer 
reliable white men for all work, but the Japanese are better work¬ 
ers that the irregular white men usually available for hand 
work.” 3 

Japanese Farmers. 

There is a general misconception, indeed, an apprehension as 
regards Japanese farming in California owing partly to the 

1 Report of the Immigration Commission, vol. 23, pp. 65-66. 

2 Ibid., p. 65. 

8 Ibid., p. 68. 


27 





























complicated systems under which Japanese cultivate land, but 
largely to the purposely exaggerated statements frequently as¬ 
serted by the interested parties, The Asiatic Exclusion League 
to wit. We will first examine the facts. Soon after Japanese 
began to work on ranches white farmers applied to the Japanese 
the systems under which Chinese cultivated land. The first of 
these w r as “contract” system under which Japanese boss or bosses 
were bound to furnish necessary labor throughout the season of 
a given industry at a previously fixed price. The second was 
share system, which is not the same as metayage, for under it 
the proprietor held an absolute control over the management of 
the farm. It only differs from contract system in that under this 
plan the leasor and lessee share alike profits and losses under 
stipulated conditions. Cash leasing did not begin till about 
1900. The system as applied to the Japanese farmers, ought to 
be classified into two,—leasing simple and quasi-leasing. The 
former requires no explanation, but the latter is peculiar. The 
lessee pays the leasor a fixed cash rent for an industry he under¬ 
takes at his own risks, the leasor still having an absolute control 
over the management of the industry as well as over the disposi¬ 
tion of the crops. He gets his rent “out of the sale of first crops.” 
This is not leasing in the strict sense of that word. All of these 
systems were initiated by white farmers for their own con¬ 
venience and economic gains to them were thus secured. 

Just when Japanese began to cultivate their ow r n land is not 
known. But the State investigation of 1909 disclosed that the 
farm land owned by Japanese was 10,791 acres, which were 
divided into 199 farms. These farms were assessed at $330,401 
on land, and $46,927 on improvements, making a total of $397,- 
298, and were mortgaged to the extent of $173,584. In 1912 
that acreage increased to 12,726, which w T ere assessed at $609,605. 
There was an increase in the amount of 1,935 acres, and in value 
of $212,307. So much for Japanese who cultivate their own 
land. 

Concerning these farmers and tenant farmers the report of 
the State investigation says: “1,733 Japanese farms were visited 
of which 132, containing 3,876 acres, were operated by Japanese 
owners; 1,170 farms containing 46,480 acres by Japanese cash 

28 


lessees; and 431 farms containing 33,028 acres, by Japanese share 
lessees. These farms produced crops valued at, approximately, 
over $6,000,000. The most important crop grown was vegetables, 
which amounted to, approximately $2,500,000, the next being 
deciduous fruits, $1,750,000, and berries, $730,000.” 

Thus Japanese farmers occupy rather an important position 
in certain agricultural industries in California. But it must 
be borne in mind that the majority of these Japanese farmers 
are tenant farmers and these of a peculiar character as it has 
been already explained. Therefore, when their true character 
is revealed, at least their financial importance sinks down con¬ 
siderably. Their real status is succinctly but clearly brought out 
by the following conclusion of the Immigration Commission: 

“In most localities the Japanese are the most recent race to 
engage in farming on their own account, so that there is a strik¬ 
ing contrast between them and the other farmers in the West— 
in wealth as well as in the form of tenure and permanency of 
their relations in the community. While many of the Japanese 
farmers have accumulated considerable property and have be¬ 
come fairly independent in the conduct of their holdings, the 
largest number have little property and many of them have a 
form of tenure which limits their freedom in production. More¬ 
over, because of the circumstances under which they have en¬ 
gaged in farming an unusually large number of the Japanese 
have failed. Yet it must be held in mind that most of them have 
begun to farm much more recently than the farmers of other 
races. The wealth accumulated by a small minority in a few 
years has induced many to undertake farming on their own 
account.” 1 

Japanese City Trades. 

The results of the State investigation of Japanese city trades 
are summarized as follows: 

“That part of the investigation relating to the Japanese in 
business and activities other than agriculture is practically com¬ 
plete. Two thousand five hundred and forty-eight establishments 
were visited throughout the State. One thousand nine hundred 

1 Report of the Immigration Commission, vol. 23, p. 89. 

29 



and thirty-four were owned by individuals, 550 by partnerships, 
and 64 by corporations; 19.4 per cent have been in business less 
than one year; 24.2 per cent for one year; 17.2 per cent for two 
years, and 15.9 per cent for three years, making a total of 76.7 
per cent of the total established since 1906. Only 58 establish¬ 
ments, or 2.3 per cent of the total, have been in existence for ten 
years or more. The capital invested in most instances was very 
small, 68.7 per cent of the total having a capital of less than 
$1,000. The total aggregate cash invested amounted to over 
$4,000,000. The total annual transactions of these Japanese 
establishments amounted to $16,114,407, of which $5,938,012, or 
36.8 per cent, was with the white people. The total annual rent 
paid by these firms w T as over $900,000. Six thousand five run- 
dred and fifty-six persons were engaged in the conducting of 
these establishments, of which number 2,546 males and 562 
females (principally wives of owners), were employers, and 3,214 
males and 234 female employees. In addition there were em¬ 
ployed by these Japanese firms 35 male and 20 female white 
persons. In 1,782 establishments, or 69.9 per cent, the employees 
lodged at the place of work. 

“The sanitary condition of the places of work was reported as 
follows: 

Per Cent. 

Good. 81.8 

Fair. 16.6 

Bad. 1.4 


“Sanitary condition of the places of lodging: 


Good 
Fair 
Bad . 


Per Cent. 
68.5 
27.3 
4.2 


“One thousand, five hundred and sixty-eight, or 61.5 per cent 
of the total number of establishments were located in the seven 
principal cities of the State, as follows: 


Los Angeles . , 
San Francisco 

Oakland. 

Sacramento . . 


505 Fresno. 101 

497 San Jose . 79 

178 Stockton. 54 

154 


30 















“Although San Francisco did not contain the largest number of 
establishments, 34 per cent of the entire investment was repre¬ 
sented there, and 40.2 per cent of the total amount of business 
transacted therein. 

“The ruling number of hours worked per day was ten and over, 
and the prevailing wages paid were from $25 to $35 with board, 
and $40 to $50 per month without board.” 

Japanese in Oilier Occupations. 

Of the remaining occupations, the most important is un¬ 
doubtedly domestic service. It may be stated that before Japan- 
ese found work on ranches, they were exclusively confined to 
domestic work. There are now some 5,000 of them engaged in 
this service, which embraces cooking, waiting on table, house 
cleaning, etc. Below are given two tables showing the wages 
paid in San Francisco to female white domestics and Orientals 
likewise occupied: 


31 


TABLE X. Female Employment Agencies in San Francisco 

(Showing Number of Persons Furnished Positions in Various Occupations and 
their Wages during month of April 1910.) 


Occupations 


Total number of persons 

given employment. 

Number of persons given 

employment in San Fran¬ 

cisco. 

Number of persons given 

employment outside San 

Francisco. 


Wages 

PER 

Month 


$15.00 and under- 

$20.00. 

$25.00. 

$30.00. 

$35.00. 

$40.00. 

$45.00. 

$50.00. 

$60.00 and over. 

44 

27 

17 


6 

24 

3 

6 

2 

3 



58 

17 

41 

1 

2 

4 

15 

6 

11 

2 

9 

8 

58 

49 

9 

1 

7 

17 

15 

8 

7 

1 

1 

1 

47 

28 

19 

1 

4 

9 

19 

7 

6 


1 

. . . 

7 

3 

4 

1 




2 

4 




1 

1 





1 






4 

1 

3 


2 



2 





16 

16 






16 





107 

41 

66 

2 


49 

32 

21 

3 




342 

183 

159 

6 

21 

103 

85 

68 

33 

6 

11 

9 


Chambermaids. 

Cooks. 

House girls. 

Housework, general. . . 

Laundry workers. 

Linen workers. 

Nurse girls. 

Saleswomen. 

Waitresses. 

Totals. 


TABLE XI. Oriental Employment Agencies in San Francisco. 

(Showing Number of Persons Furnished Positions in Various Occupations, and 
their Wages during Month of April, 1910.) 


Occupations 

Total number of persons 
given employment. 

Number of persons given 
employment in San Fran¬ 
cisco . 

Number of persons given 
employment outside San 
Francisco. 

Wages per week 

Wages per Month. 

$5.00 and under. 

Over $5.00 to $7.50.. 

Over $7.50 to $10.00 

$10.00 and over. 

$10.00 and under.... 

$15.00. 

$20.00. 

$25.00. 

$30.00. 

$35.00. 

$40.00. 

$45.00. 

$50.00.j 

$60.00 and over. 

Bedmakers. 

16 

14 

2 









13 

2 

1 




Cooks. 

101 

73 

28 


2 

5 




1 

1 

26 

17 

25 

11 

7 

6 

Help, kitchen. 

24 

22 

2 








2 

8 

10 

4 




Help, laundry. 

11 

7 

4 









2 

3 

5 

i 



House servants. 

43 

37 

6 


1 

1 




3 

11 

21 

5 




i 

Pantrymen. 

3 

2 

1 











2 


1 


Porters. 

11 

9 

2 










4 

5 

2 



School boys. 

21 

20 

1 

8 




2 

2 

2 

2 

4 

1 





Waiters. 

31 

21 

10 


1 






2 

14 

8 

4 

2 





















Totals. 

261 

205 

56 

8 

4 

6 


2 

2 

6 

18 

88 

50 

46 

16 

8 

7 


Compiled from the tables in the Fourteenth Biennial Report of State 
Bureau of Labor, pp. 324-325. 


32 





































































































































On the basis of these statistics, we see that the majority of the 
Orientals are earning somewhere between $35 and $45 per 
month, and therefore, more than the female whites engaged in 
similar occupations. 

Lastly, as to the Japanese employed by railroad companies. 
We have no available data concerning Japanese railroad hands 
in this State. But we may learn their status indirectly through 
a knowledge of numerous Japanese employed by the Central 
Pacific, the Western Pacific, and the Salt Lake and San Pedro 
in Nevada and Utah. 

“From 1895, when they were first employed, until 1901, the 
Japanese were most numerous of the races employed as laborers. 
They were then displaced by Greeks at a higher wage, but were 
later re-employed at a lower wage than that paid to the displaced 
race. In 1906 they numbered 1,000; 1908, 900; at the beginning 
of 1909, 700. They are now paid $1.40 per day, while the 
Italians, the other important racial element in maintenance of 
way work, are in some cases paid $1.50. On the other two roads 
referred to, the Japanese are paid the same wages as all white 
men, $1.45 per day, and in one case more than the Mexicans 
employed on the southern end of the route. They are also paid 
the same wage as Greeks, Italians, and Slavs, and all white men 
employed on another road with its western terminus in Utah.” 1 

The report further says: “With few exceptions the Japanese 
are preferred to the Greeks, who are most invariably ranked as 
the least desirable section hands, because they are not industrious 
and are intractable and difficult to control. As between Japan¬ 
ese and Italians, opinion is fairly evenly divided. The same may 
be said of them and the Slavs. Though the Japanese are usually 
ranked below the Chinese and Mexicans, they compare favorably 
with the south and eastern Europeans, who constitute a still 
larger percentage of the common laborers in maintenance of way 
work.” 2 

Professor Jenks and Dr. Lauck says: “The road masters and 
section foremen generally prefer the Japanese to either Italians, 
Greeks or Slavs as section hands. In railway shops they are 

1 R.ooort of tho Immigration Commission, vol. 23, p. 41. 

3 Ibid., pp. 41-42. 


33 



given a higher rank than the Mexicans, Greeks, and at times 
than the Italians.” 1 

So much for the occupations in which Japanese are engaged 
and wages they earn in the more important of these. Our ex¬ 
amination brought out two facts in relief concerning the activity 
of Japanese; first, the narrowness of their field of activity, and 
second, in each of the important occupations Japanese are 
earning just as much as anybody else similarly engaged, if not 
more. This fact is probably accounted for by their relative 
efficiency. In spite of a persistent allegation by anti-Japanese 
agitators, Japanese do not sell their labor at cheaper prices. 

1 Jenks and Lauck, “Immigration Problems,” p. 228. 


\ 


34 



PART V. 

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ASPECTS OF JAPANESE 
IMMIGRATION. 

Innumerable, indeed, are charges brought out by anti-Japan¬ 
ese agitators against Japanese immigrants. Among these the 
most conspicuous and persistent is that of non-assimilation. We 
will not refute this bogie. We will simply present facts that will 
clearly indicate the capacity of the Japanese for assimilation 
and the actual progress they have made toward assimilation. 

First, as to their literacy. The table below shows the percent¬ 
age of the Japanese who can speak English, by economic groups, 
and by industry, and by years in the United States: 


WAGE-EARNERS 


Industry 

Number 

Reporting 

Complete 

Data. 

Per Cent Who Speak English, 
by Years in United States 


Under 5 

5 to 9 

10 or over 

Total 

Agriculture. 

6,041 

58.8 

72.5 

84.4 

65.8 

Fish canneries. 

458 

79.4 

80.5 

84.8 

80.3 

Fruit and vegetable canneries 

201 

51.1 

66.7 

63.2 

55.7 

Laundries. 

161 

85.0 

93.2 

90.0 

87.6 

Lumber mills. 

333 

38.8 

55.1 

73.3 

49.2 

Mining, coal. 

447 

44.7 

54.2 

57.8 

50.3 

Smelting. 

63 

18.4 

40.0 

60.0 

28.6 

Transportation: 

Steam railroads— 
Maintenance of way and 




61.8 


construction. 

1,135 

44.7 

55.5 

49.2 

Shops, bridges and build¬ 
ings, water and signal 
service. 



62.3 

75.0 

46.8 

628 

37.0 

Electric railways. 

102 

50.0 

76.0 

100.0 

58.8 

Miscellaneous. 

1,277 

83.8 

85.7 

96.1 

86.2 

Total. 

10,846 

58.1 

70.7 

82.6 

64.7 


IN BUSINESS FOR SELF 


Arrripulture . 

1 

847 

458 

1 

85.9 

95.0 

96.0 

97.1 

98.1 

99.3 

93.4 

97.4 

MianplIanPOUS . 

Total. 

1,350 

38.4 

96.4 

98.6 

94.8 


i Report of the Immigration Commission, vol. 23, pp. 146-147. 











































‘'By way of summary, it may be said that when compared with 
other races employed in similar kinds of labor in the same in¬ 
dustry, the Japanese show relatively rapid progress in acquiring 
a speaking knowledge of English. Their advance has been much 
more rapid than that of the Chinese and the Mexicans, who show 
little interest in ‘American’ institutions. During their first five 
years of residence a greater proportion have learned to speak 
English than of most of the south and east European races. 
However, among those who have been in this country for a longer 
period of time, a larger proportion of the south and east 
Europeans than of the Japanese speak English. The progress 
of the Japanese is due to their great eagerness to learn, which has 
overcome more obstacles than have been encountered by most 
of the other races, obstacles of race prejudice, of segregation, and 
of wide difference in language . 1 The Chinese are self-satisfied 
and indifferent in this regard, whereas the Japanese are eager 
to learn the English language or anything pertaining to Western 
civilization.” 2 

The next table shows the percentage of foreign-born Japanese 
who read their native language and percentage who read and 
write their native language, by sex and industry . 3 

MALE 


Industry 

Number 

Reporting 

Complete 

Data. 

Per Cent Who 

Read 

Native 

Language 

Read and 
Write Native 
Language 

Agriculture. 

5,563 

97.6 

97.5 

Fish canneries. 

368 

100.0 

100.0 

Fruit and vegetable canneries. 

201 

98.0 

97.5 

Laundries. 

161 

100.0 

100.0 

Lumber mills. 

231 

98.3 

97.8 

Mining, coal. 

403 

96.3 

96.0 

Smelting. 

63 

100.0 

100.0 

Transportation: 




Steam railroads— 




Maintenance of way and construction. 

1,000 

98.2 

98.1 

Shops, bridges and buildings, water and signal 




service. 

628 

98.6 

98.4 

Electric railwavs. 

102 

92.2 

92.2 

Miscellaneous. 

849 

98.9 

98.9 

Total.*. 

9,569 

97.9 

97.8 


1 Report of the Immigration Commission, vol. 23, p. 149. 

2 Ibid. 

8 Ibid., p. 150. 


36 
























FEMALE 


Agriculture. 

Fruit and vegetable canneries 
Miscellaneous. 

Total. 


83 

74.1 

72.8 

36 

52.8 

52.8 

34 

91.2 

91.2 

151 

72.8 

72.2 


“It is evident from the preceding discussion that the standard 
of literacy shown by the Japanese, as indicated by their ability 
to read and write their native language, is far higher than that 
shown by the Chinese, the Mexicans, and most of the south and 
east European races, if comparison is limited to those who are 
employed in the same industries and at the same kind of work.’’ 1 

“As noted above, with regard to their ability to speak English 
many Japanese immigrants have attended high schools in Japan, 
where they are given a foundation in English grammar . . . 
But a further aid in mastering the English language is found in 
the schools which are conducted in this country. Practically all 
of the few Japanese children of school age in the West attend 
the public schools, where they are found in all classes, from the 
primary grades through the entire elementary and secondary 
system.” 2 

“Numerous schools are maintained for the benefit of adult 
Japanese immigrants. No less than 33, the primary aim of which 
is to instruct adult Japanese in the English language, were re¬ 
ported by agents of the Commission in Los Angeles, San Fran¬ 
cisco, Oakland, and Sacramento, Cal., and Seattle and Tacoma, 
Wash. Of these, several were designed primarily for the “student 
class,” and embraced all subjects preparatory to high school, and 
in one or two cases for college work. The great majority, how¬ 
ever, were conducted by the various religious missions and by 
private parties with the primary aim of imparting a knowledge 
of English to Japanese laborers.” 3 

At the end of 1912, the number of Japanese attending various 
public and private schools in California were as follows : 4 

1 Report of the Immigration Commission, vol. 23, p. 151. 

2 Ibid., pp. 151-152. 

8 Ibid., p. 152. 

4 Japanese American Year-Book for 1912, pp. 131-132. 

37 
















School. Number. 

Primary and grammar schools, public . 1,183 

High schools, public . 139 

Colleges and universities. 105 

Japanese kindergartens and primary schools, private . 678 

•‘Special” schools for adult Japanese, private. 570 


The next table gives per cent of foreign-bom Japanese who 
read English and per cent who read and write English, by sex 
and industry . 1 


WAGE-EARNERS 


Industry 

Number Reporting 
Complete Data. 

Percent Who Speak 
English 

Percent Who Read 
and Write English 

Male 

Female 

Male 

Female 

Male 

Female ] 

Agriculture. 

6,041 

111 

21.6 

2.7 

19.8 

2 7 

Fish canneries. 

368 


56.0 


52 .7 


Fruit and vege¬ 







table canneries. . 

201 

36 

34.3 

5.6 

33.8 

5 .6 

Laundries. 

161 


59 .0 


59 .0 


Lumber mills. 

231 


36 .4 


35 .5 


Mining, coal. 

447 


48.1 


47 .2 


Smelting. 

63 


11.1 


11 .1 


Transportation: 







steam railroads: 







Maintenance of 







way and con¬ 







struction . 

1,000 


42 .8 


42 .2 


Shops, bridges 







and buildings, 







water and sig¬ 







nal service.... 

628 


33.8 


30 .2 


Electric railways. 

102 


51.0 


50.0 


Miscellaneous. 

1,276 

60 

59.1 

23.3 

54.3 

21.7 

Total. 

10,518 

207 

32.6 

9.2 

30.5 

8.7 


IN BUSINESS FOR SELF 


Agriculture. 

841 

277 

37.5 

7.6 

36.6 

7.2 

Miscellaneous. 

450 

198 

71.1 

22 .2 

71.1 

21.7 

Total. 

1,291 

475 

49.2 

13.7 

48.6 

13.3 


1 Report of the Immigration Commission, vol. 23, p. 154. 


38 
































































Lastly, the following table shows the percentage of foreign- 
born Japanese who read and who read and write some language, 
by sex and by industry: 1 


WAGE-EARNERS 


Industry 

Number Reporting 

Complete Data 

Per cent Who Read | 

i Per cent Yv ho Read and 
Write 

Male 

Female 

| Male | 

| Female 

1 

1 

Agriculture. 

6,041 

111 

97.8 

79.3 

97.7 

78.4 

Fish canneries. 

458 


99.8 


99.8 


Fruit and vegetable 







canneries. 

201 

36 

98.0 

52.8 

98.0 

52.8 

Laundries. 

161 


100.00 


100.0 


Lumber mills. 

332 

11 

98.5 

(a) 

98.2 

(a) 

Mining, coal. 

447 


96.0 

(a) 

95.7 

(a) 

Smelting. 

63 


100.00 


100.0 


Transportation: 







Steam railroads: 







Maintenance of 







way and con¬ 


- 





struction . 

1,135 

3 

97.1 

(a) 

96.1 

(a) 

Shops, bridges 







and buildings, 







water and sig¬ 







nal service.... 

628 


99.2 


99.0 


Electric railways. 

102 


92.2 


92.2 








Miscellaneous. 

1,277 

60 

99.2 

91.7 

99.2 

91.7 

Total. 

10,844 

221 

98.0 

78.7 

97.8 

78.3 


IN BUSINESS FOR SELF 


Agriculture. 

838 

277 

97.4 

88.8 

97.3 

87.7 

Miscelleaneous.... 

450 

198 

98.7 

91.9 

98.7 

91.9 

Total. 

1,288 

475 

97.8 

90.1 

97.7 

89.5 


“Reviewing the whole field of literacy, the following facts are 
clearly disclosed. More progress in learning English has been 
made by Japanese employed in or near the centers of Japanese 
population than by others of the same race who work under other 
conditions. This is piartially due to environment and partially 
to the fact that many Japanese employed in the cities are of the 
student class. Compared to the other races employed in similar 
kinds of work in similar industries, the Japanese appear to have 
progressed more rapidly than most of the other races, especially 
the Chinese and Mexicans. This seeming superiority must be 
discounted somewhat because of two facts: First, that many of 

1 Report of the Immigration Commission, vol. 23, p. 157. 

39 




















































the Japanese have had a high school training in Japan, which 
usually includes a rudimentary knowledge of English grammar, 
and hence is a great aid in learning to use English; and second, 
that many Japanese have come to the continental United States 
by way of the Hawaiian Islands and Canada, where they have 
had some contact with English-speaking people. None of the 
other races have had these advantages before immigration. The 
differences between the Japanese and some of the other races with 
regard to the learning of English are so great, however, as to 
justify the statement that the Japanese have acquired the use 
of the English language more quickly and more eagerly than the 
Chinese, the Mexicans and some of the European races/’ 1 

It may be also added as another channel for assimilation, what 
the Japanese read apart from Japanese publications. “The 
American publications subscribed for are largely local daily 
newspapers of the community in or near which the subscribers 
live. However, a number of households (in most cases those of 
the urban Japanese) subscribe for weekly or monthly magazines 
printed in English. Among these are the Literally Digest, the 
Independent, the Outlook, the Review of Reviews, the Pacific 
Monthly, and Collier’s Weekly 2 

“With regard to their political status in the United States, the 
Japanese, because of their race, occupy a position essentially 
different from that of the European immigrants. Under the 
provisions of the laws of the United States they cannot become 
citizens by process of naturalization. During the investigation a 
comparatively large number of the farmers and business classes 
expressed a desire to become naturalized and expressed regret at 
the discrimination against persons who do not belong to some 
white race.” 3 

As to amalgamation. “The race antipathy evidenced by the 
instances cited above has done much to cause and to perpetuate 
the clannishness of the Japanese immigrants. The feeling is also 
very general that marriage between Japanese and white persons 
should be discouraged. In fact, the strong popular sentiment in 
this connection has developed into a definite legal prohibition of 

1 Report of the Immigration Commission, vol. 23, p 158. 

-Ibid., p. 159. 

3 TbicL, pp. 159-160. 


40 



such unions in the State of California, and has been strong enough 
in the other Western States to prevent any widespread intermar¬ 
riage between the Japanese and the other races.” 1 In spite of 
this, there are quite a number of Japanese who have married 
American girls, especially in the East, where there is no race 
prejudice against Japanese. 

Then as to the religious life of Japanese immigrants. “In 
every community where any considerable number of Japanese 
have settled Christian- missions have been instituted for their 
benefit. The membership of the Christian missions, while large 
and increasing year by year, is smaller than that of the Buddhist 
missions organizations. These missions are for Japanese alone, 
a recognition of a difference between them and other races and a 
condition which lessens their value as an assimilative force.” 2 
This last indictment is worthy of serious consideration by all who 
are interested in religious salvation as well as in real Christianiza¬ 
tion of Japanese. 

Though Japanese are racially ineligible for membership in 
practically all of the American orders, they are well organized 
among themselves. The most important of all the Japanese or¬ 
ganizations is The Japanese Association of America, a federation 
of the local Japanese associations which now number no less than 
fifty scattered all over the State. One of its chief aims is “to 
promote a better understanding between Japanese and Ameri¬ 
cans.” This very pamphlet is prepared solely for that purpose. 
Then there is The Japanese Benevolent Society. It was organized 
in 1910, with the object of making more complete provision for 
the care of sick, injured, or unfortunate Japanese. 

“With regard to criminal acts, the record of the Japanese im¬ 
migrants is very good.” “For example, in San Francisco from 
1900 to 1907 less than 100 Japanese were reported among the 
committments, a remarkably small number if the size of the 
Japanese population of that city and the number of Greeks, Ital¬ 
ians, and others committed are considered.” “Gambling is an evil 
which is often to be found in the Japanese just as it is found in 
other 'camps’ where any large number of laborers live and work 

1 Report of the Immigration Commission, vol. 23, p. 162. 

2 Ibid., p. 163. 


41 



together. In connection with the whole matter of law and order 
it should be noted, however, that the general attitude of the white 
people is that it is not important what the Asiatics do among 
themselves, so long as violation of law or disorder does not en¬ 
danger or inconvenience the members of other races.” 1 

“The Japanese as a race are temperate. Though there is much 
drinking at restaurants and in ‘camps/ instances are rare in 
which drunkenness has interfered with their efficiency in any 
branch of employment.” 2 

After examining these detailed facts covering over twenty 
pages, the federal report concludes: “Thus the Japanese have 
a comparatively small percentage of illiterates among them, are 
intelligent and eager to learn of American institutions, make a 
fairly rapid progress in learning to speak English, and unusually 
good progress in learning to read and write it. They have not 
proved to be burdensome to the community because of pauperism 
or crime. Yet the Japanese, like the Chinese, are regarded as 
differing so greatly from the white races that they have lived in 
but no integral part of the community. A strong public opinion 
has segregated them, if not in their work, in the other details of 
their living, and practically forbids, when not expressed in law, 
marriage between them and persons of the white race.” 3 So 
much for the social and political aspects of Japanese immigration. 

Recapitulation. 

By way of summary, I wish to say: 

1. Japanese immigration was insignificant till 1891, when 
1,000 of them immigrated for the first time. The number never 
exceeded 10,000 in any one year but once, and on the whole, 
formed but less than a drop in the bucket on the basis of general 
immigration. The agreement of 1907 “has been loyally and 
rigidly kept by the Japanese foreign office: too rigidly it may be, 
for even students from Japan bound for American universities, 
the best bond of peace between the two countries, find it increas¬ 
ingly hard to get their passports.” 4 The Japanese population 

1 Report of the Immigration Commission, vol. 23, p. 165. 

2 Ibid., p. 3 66. 

3 Ibid., p. 166. 

4 D. S. Jordan, “What Shall We Say?” p. 69. 

42 



lias slightly diminished since 1908, when it was estimated at 
80,000. The census for 1910 says it was 71,000. 

2. The “scums” of Japan never immigrated to the United 
States. Common laborers formed but 21.4 per cent of the total 
immigration between 1886 and 1908. “Beaten men of beaten 
races” could not be applied to the Japanese. To call them 
“coolies” is to deny facts. Females formed a small portion of the 
Japanese immigrants, though they formed a larger portion of 
immigration in more recent years. Ninety-five per cent of Japan¬ 
ese were between 14 and 44 years of age when admitted into the 
country. The per capita amount of money brought by them is not 
materially different from that brought by the most well-to-do 
European immigrants, viz.: English, German, Irish, etc. In 
California, the illiteracy among Japanese is smallest as compared 
with that among other foreign-born elements. 

3. By far the great majority of Japanese immigrants are con¬ 
fined to the Western States, and in particular to California. But 
they do not congest. They are scattered all over the State, though 
the majority are found in rural districts. 

4. Occupationally the most important for Japanese is agri¬ 
culture. Here they are said to be now indispensable. Several 
thousands are employed by their own merchants and tradesmen. 
A slightly less number are found in domestic service. Some are 
employed by railroads. In none of the more important occupa¬ 
tions do the Japanese now compete to the detriment of the general 
standard of living. When similarly occupied, on the whole, the 
Japanese are earning just as much as anybody else, if not more. 

5. The current notion concerning Japanese farming in Cali¬ 
fornia is altogether too exaggerated. The farm land owned by 
them is no more than 12,726 acres, and the amount leased, 17,596. 
“Because of the circumstances under which they have engaged 
in farming an unusually large number of the Japanese have 
failed.” 

6. Japanese city trades are, indeed, numerous. But most of 
these are very small-scale enterprises. The total capital invested 
in these is no more than $4,000,000 and the total annual transac¬ 
tions, $16,000,000. 


43 


7. In discussion of matters involving personal character, one 
is apt to become “subjective/’ but the purpose of this pamphlet 
is an “objective” study. Therefore, to carry out this purpose I 
have done no more than to quote at length, the various facts 
gathered by the Immigration Commission, and which are now 
made public in three massive volumes of over 2,500 pages. Ac¬ 
cording to this authority, the percentage of illiteracy among 
Japanese is exceedingly small. They are eager and make strenu¬ 
ous effort to learn of American institutions and to speak, read 
and write English. In fact, they “have made unusually good 
progress” in this regard. They are practically free from criminal 
acts and pauperism. They impose no burden upon the com¬ 
munity. The only objection raised is that the Japanese race does 
not belong to any branch of white races. Such, then, are facts 
concerning the various aspects of Japanese immigration. 


44 


PART VI. 

ANTI-JAPANESE AGITATION. 

In view of the facts surveyed, we will now briefly review the 
various assertions and allegations frequently made by anti- 
Japanese agitators. The name of Dr. O’Donnell may be recalled 
as the first man who raised the cry, “Japs must go,” as early as 
1887, when there were no more than 400 Japanese in the entire 
State. These few Japanese could not be made even a municipal 
political issue. He failed. 

The year 1899 saw two events that counted much against 
Japanese: First, a bubonic plague broke out in San Francisco. 
Orientals were much blamed for it, for what particular reasons 
we do not know to this day. Second, there was held a mass meet¬ 
ing under an extravagant name of “Japanese Exclusion” under 
the auspices of the Building Trades Council and San Francisco 
Labor Council. Mr. Thomas F. Turner, who doubtless voices 
the sentiment of these agitators, says, “the Chinese are contract 
labor coolies, a servile class subjected to the jurisdiction of the 
Six Companies, with life and death power. They are cheap 
laborers: deprive the whites of their employment, and also keep 
out the white immigrants from the State; they are loathsome in 
their habits and filthy in their dwellings; and vile in their 
morals.” “They (Japanese) are more servile than the Chinese, 
but less obedient and far less desirable. They have most of the 
vices of the Chinese with none of their virtues. They underbid 
in everything, and as a class tricky, unreliable and dishonest.” 1 
This was written in 1901. 

In 1905 The Asiatic Exclusion League, then known as The 
Japanese and Korean Exclusion League, was organized and 0. E. 
Tveitmoe was made its president. He is still with it. Who he is 
need not be told. He is too famous for that. The League, how¬ 
ever, has already caused a great deal of unnecessary unpleas¬ 
antry. The “School Question” of 1906 was entirely due to their 
activity. The entire number of Japanese children attending the 

1 “Chinese and Japanese Labor in the Mountain and Pacific States,” in 
Reports of Industrial Commission, Vol. 15, p. 387. 


45 


public schools then was no more than 92, and these were scat¬ 
tered in 20 different schools. Besides, the report of Secretary 
Metcalf, who was sent here by President Roosevelt to investigate, 
says: 

“Many of the foremost educators in the State, on the other 
hand, are strongly opposed to the action of the San Francisco 
Board of Education. Japanese are admitted to the University of 
California, an institution maintained and supported by the State. 
They are also admitted to, and gladly welcomed at, Stanford 
University. San Francisco, so far as known, is the only city 
which has discriminated against Japanese children. I talked 
with a number of prominent labor men, and they all said that 
they had no objection to Japanese children attending the primary 
grades; that they wanted the Japanese children now in the 
United States to have the same school, to have the same school 
privileges as children of other nations. . . .” 1 

The smashing of Japanese restaurants was also encouraged by 
the same League. And the municipal government was then in 
the hands of Schmitz and Ruef. 

Their agitation work has been much aided by certain poli¬ 
ticians. Mr. Kahn, who has been consistently decrying against 
Asiatic immigration, among other things because of their igno¬ 
rance, when the Burnett-Dillingham Bill with the literacy test 
came before the House, he pleaded for admission of illiterates. 
He further said, “Restriction of immigration is not a new sub¬ 
ject, and the present agitation is but a recrudescence of anti- 
foreign agitation that has occurred from the very beginning of 
our government.” Yet he himself has been a strenuous cam¬ 
paigner against Japanese immigration. Wonderful is the logic 
of some politicians! 

But more specifically brings Mr. E. A. Hayes charges against 
Japanese. Here is a set of wholesale charges. “A close acquaint¬ 
ance shows one that unblushing lying is so universal among the 
Japanese as to be one of the leading national traits; that com¬ 
mercial honor, even among her commercial classes, is so rare as 
to be only the exception that proves the reverse rule, and that the 
vast majority of the Japanese people do not understand the 
meaning of the word ‘morality/ but are given up to practice of 

Quoted in H. B. Johnson, “Discrimination Against Japanese in Cali¬ 
fornia,” p. 99. 


46 



licentiousness more generally than in any nation in the world 
justly making any pretense to civilization. I am told by those 
who have lived in Japan and understand its language that there 
is no word in Japanese corresponding to ‘sin/ because there is in 
the ordinary Japanese mind no conception of its meaning. There 
is no word corresponding to the word ‘home/ because there is 
nothing in the Japanese domestic life corresponding to the home 
as we know it. The Japanese language has no term for ‘privacy/ 
They lack the term and the clear idea because they lack the prac¬ 
tice.” These words are taken from his speech made before the 
House on March 13, 1906, under the title of “Japanese Ex¬ 
clusion.” 

I am afraid that the opening sentence has to include Mr. 
Hayes himself. At its best, it is the case of a pot calling a kettle 
black. If what is said is true, how was the tremendous growth of 
J apanese commerce during the last fifty years accomplished ? By 
lying, I suppose. As to the meaning of the word “morality,” I 
should like to suggest a reading of Dr. Nitobe’s Bushido. It is 
exquisitely written, though by a native of Japan. Those who 
informed Mr. Hayes evidently do not understand Japanese 
language. The Japanese word “tsumi” exactly corresponds to 
“sin,” while “uchi” and “naisho” correspond respectively to 
“home” and “privacy.” I have purposely given the coloquial 
terms, because they are understood universally. It is better not 
to pretend to be wise about things we are absolutely ignorant. 

I am, indeed, sorry to own that prostitution does exist in 
Japan. Is America free from it? The vice commission of Chi¬ 
cago and the recent investigation of “white slavery” in New 
York will furnish an abundance of materials to Messrs. Hayes 
of Japan to effectively indict American morality. “The man of 
the world finds the Japanese immoral, not remembering that vice 
is everywhere near him that seeks it,” says Dr. Jordan. At any 
rate, I refuse to be a Mr. Hayes, here or in Japan. 

Then he arrays the kind of statistics that will prove anything. 
“I am giving statistics showing the relative wages of the Mon¬ 
golian, especially the Japanese, and the white man. And I want 
to say, in passing, that these statistics were gathered by the 
Japanese and Korean Exclusion League of San Francisco. I 


47 


can not vouch for their accuracy, but have no doubt that they are 
substantially correct.’' Imagine what follows from such authen¬ 
tic sources. Enough has been said on this point already, and we 
shall not honor Mr. Hayes in quoting from him further. 

Nor need I enumerate reasons for the existence of The Asiatic 
Exclusion League and agitators against Japanese. They are 
guided neither by patriotism nor even by chauvinism, but by 
money-getting and vote-getting motives. Accordingly, they play 
with mobs with their mob psychology, and they have already 
done much mischief which now and then strained the friendly 
relation between the United States and Japan. Will the intelli¬ 
gent American public tolerate continuance of their vile agitation 
to make Japanese haters of Americans just to convenience selfish 
interests of a few unscrupulous individuals, when their immi¬ 
gration was practically stopped in 1907 ? 

“What shall be say of Japanese immigration? Only this: 
There is no problem now, and if we let well enough alone there 
will be no problem in the future.” “All the Japanese ask for is 
to be spared the humiliation involved in any scheme for the 
exclusion of Asiatics as Asiatics. This is a matter of national 
sensitiveness to a highly cultivated and sensitive people; and 
needlessly to hurt such a nation is to hurt ourselves. For the 
lines of commerce run in grooves of international friendliness. 
An indirect exclusion act, as of races not eligible for citizenship, 
is more humiliating than a direct act would be. It implies that 
the Japanese cannot read between the lines. Exclusion from 
citizenship, for which discrimination no adequate cause exists, 
is of the nature of insult in itself. To shut out because they have 
been insulted once adds doubly to a humiliation they have no 
power to resent, but which they hope their nearest friends among 
the nations will not offer them.” 1 I may humbly add that in 
the granting of the right of naturalization to the Japanese lies 
the fundamental and permanent solution of the so-called Japan¬ 
ese problem. The agitation cannot then continue to exist. Votes 
will silence them. Justice and fairness have to be accorded to 
Japanese as they are now accorded to immigrants from other 
nations. And this is all we ask of fair-minded Americans. 

1 D. S. Jordan, “What Shall We Say?” pp. 69 and 70. 

48 


LBAp’15 





































































































































. 









































































































































































